Chelsea Vowel2016-12-10T00:33:50-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=chelsea-vowelCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Chelsea VowelGood old fashioned elbow grease.Read the Truth and Reconciliation Report Before You Form an Opiniontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.75454782015-06-09T17:52:33-04:002016-06-09T05:59:01-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada held closing events from May 31 to June 3rd, and issued its executive summary of a report which will run to six volumes, and will be translated into six indigenous languages. The summary itself is 388 pages, and while not exactly light reading, it is incredibly accessible and well-written. Unfortunately, despite incredible media attention and a plethora of opinion articles on the issue, it has become abundantly clear that many people talking about the TRC summary have not read it.

I don't necessarily fault people for not having read the summary yet. I know many people simply have not had the time to go through it, and it seems a bit unreasonable to expect that they would have within a few hours or even days of its release.

I do expect people to read it, however, before they offer their opinions on what it says. To me, that is not at all unreasonable. If you want to opine on a subject, shouldn't you know something about it first?

There is this pernicious claim floating out there that all opinions are equally valid. Sure, if the opinions in question are about which berry reigns above all (saskatoons, obviously). You do not need to research berries to have an opinion on this. I would even suggest you do not need to actually taste any berries to have an opinion on this; make your judgment on looks alone, if you wish!

However, if you are going to write a piece in a national paper about what the TRC summary has to say, you'd better read it. You should not be given access to a platform otherwise. And given the fact that pages 341 - 345 of the summary discuss the role that media has to play in reconciliation, it is irresponsible for media outlets to be providing platforms to people who speak from positions of profound ignorance.

With that in mind, I'd like to implore all of you to take the time to become familiar with at least the executive summary. The first few paragraphs are explosive, naming Canada's conduct via the Residential School system as cultural genocide. Before you fully embrace or reject this statement, read on! See if summary makes this case convincingly. Explore your reactions! Question your reactions! Challenge your beliefs!

There are five sections to this summary, all well worth reading. The introduction explains why the TRC was necessary, and more importantly it defines how it is using the controversial term "reconciliation." The Commission Activities section lays out exactly what lengths the TRC went to in order to gather survivors' stories, and how it began laying the groundwork for wider education on the topic. I personally had no idea that so many events were held across the country! This section also discusses how the Canadian government had to be taken to court repeatedly in order to force the disclosure of documents essential to the TRC's mandate.

The History section does an amazing job of laying out global colonial history as a backdrop to the development of the Residential School system, as well as providing concrete details about the way these schools were designed and operated. In particular "The Imperial Context" subsection which begins on page 47, should be essential reading for everyone. While many of us have learned this history in fits and starts, this section brings together the history of global colonialism in a way I've never quite seen before: clearly, succinctly and briefly. It provides an excellent counter-narrative to the one of colonial superiority that so many of us have been inculcated with over our many years of schooling in the Canadian system. The utility of this section goes far beyond the issue of residential schools, and should be used in all educational settings. It is followed by "The Assimilation Policy," which no Canadian should remain ignorant about any longer.

When I began reading the History section, I was worried I would not be able to handle the excerpts from survivor testimonies that are included. To be honest, sometimes I couldn't. I needed to take many breaks to go hug my kids and just think of less awful things. If you undertake to read this summary, treat yourself kindly. Take the breaks you need, take the time you need.

If you have ever asked "what does all this have to do with the present?" then the Legacy section will provide you with clarity. The impact of residential schools on those of us living right now is fleshed out and clarified for all who have been confused by this. The TRC also begins its recommendations in this section, nesting those recommendations in the exploration of the issues. What you will find is that the first five recommendations deal with the child welfare system as it exists TODAY. Huh? Why? Well, you'll have to read to understand, and please do.

The final section is titled The Challenge of Reconciliation. This section further lays out a path to follow, with more concrete recommendations and reasons for those recommendations being given.

So often we as indigenous people are asked, "What is it you people WANT?" Well, this summary gives concrete answers to that question. We are not asking that money simply be thrown at us, as is frequently the claim. We are explaining what is wrong, why it happened/happens, and what has to be done in order to create real change. There is no need for further confusion, no need to keep asking what we want. Many of the recommendations echo what Indigenous peoples have been asking for on many levels, for decades and in some cases, centuries.

I would ask that you use this summary report to educate yourself. I would ask that you use this summary report to challenge what you think you know about these issues. I would ask that you question what is being recommended, once you have explored the rationales given. Then, and only then, should you be engaging in conversations about the report. These conversations absolutely must happen if the TRC report is going to mean anything.

These issues are not going away. There is no putting this off indefinitely. At some point, everyone living in these lands has to face what the TRC was set up to investigate. There is no valid excuse to remaining ignorant, when the information is so easily accessible to you. I for one, and more than willing to engage in conversations about the content of the report, as long as people actually read it. I very much hope that people take me up on that offer.

MORE ON HUFFPOST:]]>Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Need Both Action and Inquirytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.57297382014-08-28T12:43:26-04:002014-10-28T05:59:01-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/

An inquiry will tell us nothing we do not already know and,

we can have either an inquiry, or put the money into addressing the (known) root causes of the problem.

I want to address the second point first, because it is the most insidious, and apparently unquestioned of the two.

It is becoming an accepted truth that there is money out there, bulging out of a briefcase in someone's office perhaps, just waiting to be spent wherever the public decides to aim it. Apparently, though it is never stated so baldly, the Canadian public merely needs to make a choice: inquiry, or action NOW. It's up to us!

This is a classic false dichotomy. Only limited alternatives are presented, when in fact there are many more ways to approach the issue. Allowing this to be framed as an either or situation is incredibly dishonest, but plays wonderfully into divide and conquer tactics.

Why so problematic? First off, the briefcase stuffed near to exploding with money does not exist. Neither for an inquiry nor for addressing underlying causes of Indigenous vulnerability. Can the money be found somehow? Absolutely, but that is not a given. What IS a given is that this government is incredibly hostile to the idea of an inquiry and has done next to nothing to address root causes so far, despite repeated calls to do exactly this. Just because the issue of a national inquiry on MMIW is gaining public traction does not mean we are going to somehow magically alter this government's attitude. It is most certainly not the case that we, the public, will simply come to a decision and provincial and federal governments will march to our tune.

More damaging is the way in which the either/or 'choice' is being presented. Essentially, if you are one of the people supporting a national public inquiry into MMIW, then you are making a choice to spend all of the available (imaginary) funds on that INSTEAD of spending it to alleviate (supposedly known) root causes. You are delaying action. You are actively putting more Indigenous women and girls into harms way. You are going to be responsible for all of the Indigenous women and girls who are disappeared and murdered until such a time as an inquiry wraps up and action can finally be taken.

That is the logical extension of the logical fallacy at play here, and it is vile beyond compare. To allow this debate to be framed in such a way actively vilifies grieving families, vilifies grass-roots organizations, vilifies Indigenous peoples and Canadians who give a damn and want MMIW to become a priority. It is a way to once again place the entire blame for further violence on the heads of those who have been the ones doing their best to get these issues addressed. Decades of complete inaction on the supposedly universally known root causes of all this violence by various levels of governments are washed away clean by the claim that if only people would stop calling for an inquiry, real action could be taken. Apparently our saviours were there all along, just waiting for us to stop interfering.

I would ask that people discussing these issues in the media not accept this dichotomy and not allow themselves to be divided into two camps: either in support of an inquiry or in support of 'action'. We can and should be engaging in both.

To those claiming we already understand all of the root causes, I say this: A quick survey of the op-ed pieces published in the last two weeks alone should quickly disabuse you of any notion that there is consensus on root causes. Theories vary widely, often ignoring the research that has been done on the issues, and more often than not doubling back to simply blame Indigenous peoples for not overcoming colonialism and systemic racism well enough or quickly enough. If that is what is so 'well understood' then a discussion on a national level is sorely needed, and the sooner the better.

Indigenous peoples are calling for a national investigation that is centered on the families of missing and murdered Indigenous women, and they are also calling for immediate action. This nation is rich in monies directly derived from Indigenous lands and resources. Please don't try to tell us Canada just can't afford to do both.

êkosi

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>I Won't Oppose an Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Womentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.56979682014-08-21T17:43:03-04:002014-10-21T05:59:02-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/
The reality is, of course, much more complicated than this. Many Indigenous people oppose an inquiry for some very valid reasons, mostly centering on Canada's track record of pouring millions of dollars into inquiries that result in a whack of fantastic recommendations that are never, ever implemented. Or worse, setting up inquiries that are worse than useless and pretending the issue was dealt with, case closed.

Sarah Hunt wrote a very nuanced and specific criticism to the concept of a national inquiry on MMIW. I started quoting passages from it and then realized I'd pretty much copied and pasted the entire article, so please, stop now and read it.

Beyond the issue of recommendations that are left to gather dust or inquiries that are a tragic farce from start to finish, many people feel that the root causes of so many cases of murdered and missing Indigenous women are actually fairly well known already. The problem is deeply systemic, rooted in a fundamental devaluing of Indigenous lives, and of Indigenous women in particular. Can an inquiry, rooted in this system, see its own structures as a major factor in these deaths and disappearances? Even if it could, would an inquiry be able to actually make changes to that system?

I don't disagree with any of the criticisms raised. A national inquiry alone will not fix things.

So why then am I not in opposition to a national inquiry, despite the fact that I clearly do not support one?

Making Space for a National Discussion

Truth and reconciliation commissions were designed as a way to bring to light truths that were deliberately being denied by the state. They are considered a form of transitional justice, because they are focused on providing a national narrative of (often state-perpetrated) violence without going through the very difficult and oft-times impossible process of establishing judicially recognized fact/culpability. They are a way to speak the truths that must be spoken for there to be any hope of healing, but they are only a first step in a much longer process.

A national inquiry on MMIW would not be a truth and reconciliation commission, in the main because the violence being brought to light needs to have ended before the truth can be spoken about it. That is most certainly not the case here. We are still losing our relatives. The violence is ongoing.

What a national inquiry has the potential to do is foster a national discussion. I say discussion rather than narrative, because the story is not over. It continues to unfold around us, laying our hearts to waste one grisly discovery after another.

Although I do not believe a national inquiry will stop this violence, I do respect the wishes of many of the family members who need this discussion to happen, for these stories to be told in order to help them heal. If that were all an inquiry could possibly accomplish, just a sliver of closure, of healing, for even one grieving family member, I would still say "let's do it."

An inquiry has the potential to examine the structures of violence and the way they intersect. Let's look into intergenerational trauma from Residential Schools. Let's look into the impact of astronomic suicide rates in our communities, the violence of poverty, the way child welfare services are implicated. Let's look at how police investigate (or fail to) these crimes.

Does it matter that these questions have been asked before? Does it matter that we have some of the answers already? Couldn't we bring together all the studies that have already been done, and cobble together a pretty good 'big picture'?

Sure. That's what Indigenous-led organizations are already doing. But I do not oppose there being yet another venue for discussion. Let there be a flood of studies, and databases, and memorial projects and marches. Let the hue and cry grow so loud and inescapable that for one goddamn moment this country be forced to pay attention.

One Tool of Many

Despite all of the flaws I do see with a possible national inquiry, I see very little use in opposing it. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples submitted 444 recommendations, the bulk of which were never implemented. Yet the report has had a tremendous influence on court cases, on policy development, on research, on people just trying to learn more of the history of this country. I have a love/hate relationship with the RCAP but I refer to it often, and I am grateful for its existence.

What we cannot allow, is for a national inquiry to be the final or only response to violence against Indigenous women. I think whether you oppose or support such an inquiry, this much is clear.

I believe collective progress can be made through education. I have spoken out against top-down attempts to implement educational reform, but now I want to talk about alternatives. The First Nations Education Act is going to be passed. It will be full of words, and funding will be slow to follow, if it ever truly does. It will not meet our needs, because it has not been designed by us.

So what now? I believe we need mobilisation on a massive scale, and I believe that this can happen in a way that takes advantage of our diversity, rather than being crippled by it.

In the 50s, when indigenous peoples were moving to urban centres in large numbers, volunteers came together to create a system of programs and services that were delivered through what are now known as Friendship Centres. No one asked for permission first, or waited for legislation to be passed, they simply saw a need and tried to meet it.

Resurgence, now! Sovereignty summer schools?

I believe we need a national movement, one that also takes advantage of the experiences and expertise of our relations throughout the Americas and in other colonised territories. A movement focused on doing first, asking later, and one that is centered around our children, our land, and our education. I believe we need to pool our considerable resources and expertise in order to set up and implement a system of temporary "schools" akin to the Freedom Schools during the Civil Rights movement.

When I say akin to the Freedom Schools, I refer to the intention to encourage our children and ourselves to become social change agents through the creation of temporary, volunteer-driven educational programs that must tie into wider action. Our "sovereignty summer" did not materialize the way some hoped it would, but that is not to say nothing was being done. With some planning over these coming winter months, we could be ready to implement a nation-wide program in all our communities, urban and rural, that would sow the seeds for more lasting educational reform.

We could do this by creating for this one year, a system of "sovereignty summer schools" that would provide us with an opportunity to learn about the challenges facing us, the strength and resources we have available to us, and the actions we can take to work towards lasting changes.

I see this as a temporary effort, because the need is immediate and pressing, the long-term goal is a systemic and well-developed system of indigenous education designed and implemented by our own peoples, and such massive effort based on volunteerism cannot be indefinitely sustainable. In addition, we do not know what would come out of these schools and where they might lead us.

There have been so many initiatives taking place: teach-ins and youth conferences along side already established educational programs. We have brilliant and dedicated people who are working hard to create change. What we do not have is a unified effort that is capable of not only respecting our differences, but also drawing strength from those differences in order to link our efforts.

I am specifically not suggesting topics, methods of delivery, or goals because I think this has to be a communal effort and so many amazing ideas and programs are already out there to draw upon.

A lot of time and effort has been spent on attempting to raise the awareness of Canadians as regards indigenous struggles. What if we focus instead for a time on raising our own awareness? What could we accomplish next summer with some collaboration now?

Our children. Our land. Our education.

A longer version of this article was published on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.

]]>Colonialism in the First Nations Education Acttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.40692432013-10-09T12:43:01-04:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/
There is no Aboriginal system of education in Canada. This fact is sometimes obscured by misunderstandings of reserve or band schools, or even charter schools that may provide 'indigenous content'. Nonetheless, the system of education that exists in Canada is wholly Canadian, both legislatively and in terms of provision.

Another important fact is that the Canadian system of education is failing indigenous peoples. This is not a matter of debate. Regardless of personal opinions, bigotry, and stereotypes, the grim statistics make this very clear.

When examining access, graduation rates and post-secondary degree attainment in other countries, we do not blame individuals for egregiously poor outcomes. We do not do this, because education is a social undertaking that transcends individuals and even minority groups. It requires mobilisation of all levels of government, and it impacts every single person living within the boundaries of that system of education. This systemic dysfunction within Canadian educational delivery to Aboriginal peoples is not the fault of those it has failed. It is the culmination of centuries-old attitudes which infantilise indigenous peoples and imagines they are incapable of educating themselves.

The stats: outcomes

A sizable gap in student performance between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students is already present by grade 4, with a widening of the gap by grade 7. (page 4)

The stats: funding

The federal funding formula for on-reserve schools has been capped at 2 per cent growth per year since 1996 despite the need having increased by 6.3 per cent per year, creating a $1.5-billion shortfall between 1996-2008 for instructional services alone.

In 2007, there was a need for 69 new First Nation schools across Canada and an additional 27 needed major renovations. Funding was only provided for 21 new schools and 16 renovation projects. (page 24)

Despite claims by AANDC to the contrary, a recent federal report confirms that there are severe funding gaps in First Nations education that must be addressed immediately in the short-term, and that long-term improvements must be made with the active participation of First Nations stakeholders.

Post-secondary funding, available only to Status Indians and Inuit, has been historically inadequate to meet funding needs, and has created a backlog of 10,589 students between 2001-2006 who were denied funding. (page 34)

The First Nations Education Act: The top down approach again

Despite repeated reports and studies which recommend that the federal government cease acting unilaterally and without consultation with First Nations, that is precisely what has happened yet again with the First Nations Education Act.

Indigenous people have not seen this Act, which is supposed to be put into place in September of 2014. Instead, a draft plan has been created which will be 'shared with First Nations communities for their input'. The federal government claims it has been adequately consulting First Nations all along, but First Nations leaders have been vociferous in their dissatisfaction with this process. 'Consultation' leading up to the draft consisted of 8 consultation sessions, about 30 teleconferences, and some online activities.

The Canadian government has an absolutely dismal record with respect to indigenous education. Why anyone would believe that this time they can get it right, without even truly consulting or working with the people who will be most affected by any policy decision, is a complete mystery.

No thanks, we'll do it ourselves

In 1978 and 1979, the Mohawk communities of Kahnawake and Akwesasne opened their own schools, respectively named the Kahnawake Survival School (high school) and the Akwesasne Freedom School (elementary, junior high). Focusing on cultural and linguistic immersion and academic excellence, the schools are community funded, the infrastructure was built by the community, and each school has created its own curriculum. In essence, these are private schools which have had to form relationships with provincial authorities to ensure that their students graduate with recognized credentials that will be accepted in post-secondary institutions.

These two school embody the implementation of recommendations in numerous federal reports as well as the stated needs and aspirations of indigenous communities. They are not the only examples of solutions created and implemented by indigenous peoples, but the fact remains that the Canadian system of education does not provide adequate space for the widespread development of an indigenous system of education.

When public funding of Aboriginal education has been so woefully inadequate, and federal control has even been criminally incompetent, it is unacceptable for the Canadian government to yet again attempt to ram through a piece of legislation that cannot possibly solve the problem. You cannot fix the ills caused by a top-down approach by implementing more top-down policies.

Indigenous communities as a whole simply do not have the internal resources to create an entire system of private schooling in order to rectify the horrendous gap that has always existed between native and non-native student outcomes. If you can judge a society by its system of education, then Canada stands clearly guilty of discriminating against indigenous peoples by allowing this situation to continue; and worse, by perpetuating it through another unilateral attempt to 'do what's best for the Indians'.

If you were wondering why so few native people are in support of the proposed First Nations Education Act, I hope you have a better sense of the issue now; êkosi.

A longer version of this article was published on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.

]]>First Nations Won't 'Get Over' Your Ignorancetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.37956112013-09-04T13:00:30-04:002013-11-04T05:12:01-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/
Unfortunately much work still needs to be done to overcome pervasive and damaging stereotypes. We have witnessed very negative views bubbling up in the media this year, and one might be tempted to shrug this off as a reaction to Idle No More. However, research into media portrayals of indigenous peoples since 1869 confirm that Canadian ignorance of indigenous peoples has not changed much in all that time. Pundits, politicians, journalists and citizens tell us to "get over it", without having even a basic understanding of what "it" is.

In January, the Morris Mirror ran an editorial by the community paper's editor-in-chief Reed Turcotte, that likened us to terrorists and decried our "corruption and laziness". Not to be outdone, 80-something Nanaimo resident Don Olsen submitted a letter to the editor in March, titled "Educate First Nations to become modern citizens", detailing our supposed total lack of achievements and inability to survive in a modern world. The Calgary Herald rounded out this vituperative triumvirate with another letter to the editor by Martin Miller of Okotoks, Alta., called "Equal partners" which demands that we stop oppressing the brow-beaten taxpayer with our endless demands.

In April, a B.C. NDP candidate resigned after some of her online comments about First Nations peoples came to light.

It didn't stop there, of course. In July, Calgary Herald journalist Karin Klassen wrote an article which, in essence, defends the '60s scoop and suggests that First Nations people are culturally unfit to parent. This opinion piece was not offered by a random citizen, but was delivered by a seasoned, paid journalist. In her article, she ignores all of the research on the subject in favour of a knee-jerk personal reaction supported by nothing more than her anecdotal experiences. At its very best, the article is an example of a gross lack of professionalism.

All of these published opinions have something important in common. Every single one of them completely dismisses the role of historical and contemporary colonialism and assumes that indigenous peoples have attained complete equality with other Canadians. They all suggest a similar solution to current problems: more control over lazy, corrupt, primitive First Nations.

Anderson and Robertson's "Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers" provides exhausting evidence of how little this narrative has changed in the media since 1869. In fact, Anderson and Robertson assert in their introduction that, "with respect to Aboriginal peoples, the colonial imaginary has thrived, even dominated, and continues to do so in mainstream English-language newspapers." The imaginary to which they refer, is the way in which Canada has created an image of itself, based not so much on historical fact as on ideological interpretation. In doing so, Canada has necessarily had to rely upon an image of indigenous peoples which, as expressed recently by Turcotte, Olsen, Miller, and Klassen portrays us as pretty much useless.

How is it that so little progress has been made to overcome this narrative in 144 years? One would hope that nearly a century and a half of technological and social development would see a corresponding shift in mainstream attitudes. Instead, we literally see the same arguments being made year after year after year.

Of course, the idea that Canadian society is evolving and progressing is an important part of the colonial imaginary. When Canadians consider the injustices faced by indigenous peoples, those injustices are nearly always located in the past. The irony of course is that every Canadian generation has located such injustice in the past, and only rarely in contemporary contexts. Were this actually true, no injustice could have possibly occurred ever, much less could be understood to continue today!

Canadians who do recognise historical injustice seem to understand it in this way:

Bad things happened.

Bad things stopped happening and equality was achieved. (Though I've yet to see someone identify exactly when this happened.)

The low social and political status held by indigenous peoples is now wholly based on the choice to be corrupt, lazy, inefficient, and unsuited to the modern world.

In this view, there is no history of colonialism and systemic racism that informs the modern view of indigenous peoples, because that problem was solved at some point in the past. The real racism is in conflating legitimate dislike for indigenous peoples (based not on race or ethnicity but rather on the bad choices we make) with historic colonialism/racism which is over. In continuing to discuss colonialism and racism as a present-day concern, we are engaging in reverse-racism and oppressing blameless settlers.

The fact is, what we all learn about Canadian history is wrong. Every single one of us, native and non-native alike, have been fed a series of lies, half-truths and fantasies intended to create a cohesive national identity. What is most startling about this, is that a great many people are aware of the errors and omissions present in our system of education and in our public discourse, and yet somehow there has not yet been a national attempt to rectify this.

Integral to colonial narrative is belief in the superiority of European contributions and the absence of any truly important contribution from non-European peoples to Canadian society, except when narrowly defined within examples of successful integration and "up by their bootstraps" stories. After all, if non-European and indigenous contributions were of any real value, wouldn't we see them everywhere? Instead, all that is good and modern originated in Europe!

Not everyone states this as baldly as Mr. Olsen et al. but the sentiment is widely shared. Which is incredibly sad, because Canada will not crumble and fall apart if we become more honest and aware of the history of these lands and the incredible diversity of contributions by peoples from all over the world.A longer version of this article was published on the author's blog,âpihtawikosisân.

]]>I'm in a Life-Threatening Abusive Relationship...With My Governmenttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22794152012-12-12T08:46:08-05:002013-02-11T05:12:01-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/Idle No More on December 10, there has been very little media coverage on the movement. Most of what is being said in the mainstream media is focused on Bill C-45. I'd like to make it clear...they're getting it wrong.

Chief Theresa Spence of Attawapiskat did not launch a hunger strike over a single piece of legislation. The women who are planning on supporting her in a nationwide fast, in relay, are not doing this because of a single piece of legislation. Canada, this is not just about Bill C-45 or even all the other Bills rammed through Parliament lately.

The Treaties are nation to nation agreements between Canada and First Nations who are sovereign nations. The Treaties are agreements that cannot be altered or broken by one side of the two Nations. The spirit and intent of the Treaty agreements meant that First Nations peoples would share the land, but retain their inherent rights to lands and resources. Instead, First Nations have experienced a history of colonization which has resulted in outstanding land claims, lack of resources and unequal funding for services such as education and housing.

We contend that:

Canada has become one of the wealthiest countries in the world by using the land and resources. Canadian mining, logging, oil and fishing companies are the most powerful in the world due to land and resources. Some of the poorest First Nations communities (such as Attawapiskat) have mines or other developments on their land but do not get a share of the profit. The taking of resources has left many lands and waters poisoned -- the animals and plants are dying in many areas in Canada. We cannot live without the land and water. We have laws older than this colonial government about how to live with the land.

We contend that:

Currently, this government is trying to pass many laws so that reserve lands can also be bought and sold by big companies to get profit from resources. They are promising to share this time...Why would these promises be different from past promises? We will be left with nothing but poisoned water, land and air. This is an attempt to take away sovereignty and the inherent right to land and resources from First Nations peoples.

In short, this is what we have always been talking about. Whether the particular focus has been on housing, or education or the environment, or whatever else. What lies at the heart of all these issues is our relationship with Canada. And Canada? This relationship is abusive.

Things are not getting better. In fact, many of us feel that things are getting worse. Many of us feel that the reason things aren't getting any better, is because Canada has forgotten it is a Treaty nation too.

When the relationship between indigenous peoples and Europeans first began here, it was based on Treaties of Peace and Friendship. As indigenous peoples understand this relationship, it is one that should work to the mutual benefit of all involved. That relationship quickly became overshadowed by one more focused on extinguishing aboriginal rights, particularly as they relate to the land.

I am not speaking about events hundreds of years ago. I am telling you that Canada continues to focus on stripping away all of our rights and land while at the same time telling the world that it is doing the opposite.

In this document Canada clearly lays out its interests in any negotiations it enters into with indigenous people. The term "certainty" has replaced "termination," but the intent is still the same.

I can go find dismal statistics on pretty much any aspect of life for indigenous peoples in this country; trot them all out and say, "look it's really bad" and you will nod and say, "wow it sure is," but that still won't make it clear for you. I need you -- WE need you, to see the forest and not just the trees.

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW

Aaron Paquette does a wonderful job of highlighting why this is not just about indigenous peoples. It is about everyone living in Canada:

This is much greater than angry protesting natives, this is about becoming aware of the world in which you live.

First they gutted the sciences, long term studies that would help us understand our ecosystem better so we could develop more responsibly, and no one said a word.

Then they cut funding for our shared history and those who work to preserve it, while at the same time dumping tens of millions of dollars into celebrating a British colony war that happened before we were even a country, and still no one said anything.

Then the world was made aware of the shameful conditions for small children growing up on underfunded, polluted Reservations. A small murmur and then nothing.

And now, because of the apathy they see, this government has taken galling steps to sell out our wilderness, our resources and sovereignty. And not even to the highest bidder. It's a yard sale with no regard for responsibility or care for anyone who might be negatively affected (in other words, all of us).

From millions of protected waterways a couple weeks ago, we now have hundreds. Yes, you read that right.

So why are Canada's Indigenous Peoples the only ones who are standing up? Why are they now the World's Protectors?

What are the issues? The issues are many. The issues are well documented. The issues have been studied and researched and reported on ad nauseum until we have literally filled libraries with the issues and the recommendations and words, words, words.

What is all boils down to is this: Canada has not committed itself to addressing the colonial relationship it still has with indigenous peoples. Canada is in denial about that relationship. I think it's fair to say that most Canadians believe that kind of relationship no longer exists. We are trying to tell you that you are wrong.

Contrary to popular perception, indigenous peoples are not just about blockades and protests. We have engaged in every dialogue Canada has been willing to enter into since before Canada was even a nation. When the requirements changed, often arbitrarily, we complied. When Canada pulled out of the structures it built, dumping years of work down the tubes only to decide to set up a different structure and begin again, we were there, at the table, ready to do it over.

This has gone on for too long. The Canadian government continues to mouth platitudes about its supposed dedication to this relationship, while it slashes funding, ignores our emergencies, pulls out of comprehensive land claim discussions, "consults" with us and then ignores everything we told them, all while pursuing a hard-line agenda which accepts only termination as a result.

We have been backed into a corner and we are literally fighting for our lives. We are literally dying, in so many preventable and unacceptable ways. I'm not being poetic or hyperbolic here and I don't just mean culturally. We are dying.

No one should expect us to stay quiet or polite about this. We have done what has been asked, we have played along to the constantly changing rules. It hasn't worked. It hasn't saved us. Idle No More is about saving ourselves.

We will continue to talk, and meet, and submit hundreds of thousands of reports each year...but we will also rise. We are rising. You will find that you have many issues in common with us, as Aaron pointed out. This is not us against you. This is hopefully all of us. Together.

This article was originally posted on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.]]>Can You Wear Native Fashion Without Being Offensive?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21847162012-11-24T12:57:47-05:002013-01-24T05:12:02-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/Navajo trademark, to No Doubt and Victoria's Secret experiencing a long-overdue backlash to the all-too common misuse of Plains warbonnets, the issues surrounding "native-inspired" fashion are being talked about on a wider scale.

What a lot of people are asking is, "If we love native fashion, where can we get it without engaging in cultural appropriation?"

Jessica Metcalfe (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) has been answering that question for quite some time on her blog, Beyond Buckskin. What's even more awesome is she launched the Beyond Buckskin Boutique which gives you instant access to legitimate native fashion, from haute couture to streetwear, modern and traditional.

The internet has provided native designers with a fantastic way of tapping into the extraordinary hunger for "Native American" fashion, and perhaps even more importantly, allow those of us who are fighting against cultural appropriation to offer some concrete alternatives to those who just really, really want this stuff.

That's what the "Buy Native" campaign recently launched by Metcalfe is aiming for. She provides a list of native run online stores you can access right now to meet all your native fashion needs.

In a recent article, Jessica Metcalfe was asked how launching a "native fashion" boutique is any different than what Urban Outfitters and so many other companies are doing. I think her response is well worth quoting here:

I work with Native American artists -- folks who are active members of Native communities.

These artists are exceptionally talented.

They are also very knowledgeable and smart about their cultures and cultural values and know which items (i.e. sacred items) are off-limits and shouldn't be sold.

They know how to translate the artistic traditions of their Native communities to be shared by people from ALL backgrounds.

They don't resort to stereotypes, and they present a new vision and a new version of "the Native" in fashion.

They are incredibly respectful of Native people.

Profits from the Beyond Buckskin Boutique go directly to these artists and support small businesses, many of which are in Native communities and represent economic development strategies. I could go on.

This is pretty much as good as it gets, in my opinion. There is a difference between appropriation and appreciation, and Metcalfe pretty clearly explains that above.

So if you are looking for real Native American fashion, browse the many native-run stores out there for some kickass presents for you or others, no matter who you are or where you live.

See more misguided fashion decisions...]]>The Dirty Secret of Dirty Water in First Nationstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20948272012-11-09T12:19:47-05:002013-01-09T05:12:01-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/1,400 water advisories issued throughout Canada. Water security in this country is something that should concern everyone. Nevertheless, the severity and duration of water advisories in First Nations communities is nothing short of scandalous.

Neskantaga First Nation, bordering the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario has been on a boil water advisory since 1995. You can read about that community as well as five others in this Polaris Institute publication, Boiling Point.

Another aspect of this problem is the fact that some First Nations do not have running water at all, and thus are not counted when water advisories are tallied. In Manitoba alone, 10 per cent of First Nations have no water service. Across Canada, there are 1,800 reserve homes lacking water service and 1,777 homes lacking sewage service.

If you are asking yourself how this is even possible in a country like Canada, the Auditor General highlighted the main problem areas in 2005:

No laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water in First Nations communities, unlike other communities.

The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many water systems is still deficient.

The technical help available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented.

It is AANDC who defines the construction codes and standards applicable to the design and construction of water systems in First Nations communities, and the Auditor General found that these codes and standards are extremely inconsistent and poorly followed up on. In addition, the AG found that water testing by Health Canada is also inconsistent, hampering the ability to detect problems in water quality before a crisis arises. Added to this, most of those operating water treatment plant operators in First Nations are not properly trained for their position.

In 2007 the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples issued two major recommendations to improve the quality of water available to First Nations. First, an independent assessment of the problem was needed. This was completed in April of 2011. The report called for about $5 billion over 10 years to address current deficiencies and keep up with projected First Nations population growth.

The second recommendation was that the federal government should consult with First Nations to develop legislation to fill the regulatory gap. Instead, the federal government has proposed Bill S-11, which was then replaced by Bill S-8. Unfortunately, the Canadian Environmental Law Association noted three major problems with the proposed legislation:

The bill does not respect constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights.

There is no long-term vision for First Nations water resource management.

First Nations governance structures are not being respected.

These concerns have been echoed by the Assembly of First Nations and a number of Members of Parliament. The bill does not lay out a funding formula and is very unclear as to how safe drinking water will actually be provided to First Nations.

First Nations have been working very hard to develop a national strategy to address this decades-old issue. Rather than imposing more top-down solutions, it is time for the government of Canada to actually engage in meaningful consultation with those impacted by the lack of safe drinking water in First Nations communities. A solution cannot be built by money and good intentions alone.

A more detailed version of this article can be found on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.

]]>Meet the First Native to Get a Comedy Special on CBCtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18525612012-09-06T12:18:19-04:002012-11-06T05:12:01-05:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/
Recently I got a chance to interview Ojibway comedian, Ryan McMahon, and ask him a few questions about his upcoming UnReserved Tour.

How did you get your start in comedy? I mean, there's some sort of affirmative action for native comedians, right? You get guaranteed spots on Canadian television and radio and at venues, whether you're funny or not? Some non-native comedian is sitting in his mom's basement right now crying his eyes out because you got a spot that should have gone to him or something?

I half stumbled into it. For the long version of this you can visit my site. For the short version -- essentially, I was fresh out of Theatre School and ready to work. Once I started working as an actor I hated it. I was voiceless and not being represented. I didn't connect with any of the work. And yes. I feel a lot of mainstream comedians look at me as "the native comedian" and that I was given my comedy special and my other spots because of that. They got the land -- I got a festival spot 500 years later.

You are really involved in social media, you're all over Facebook and Twitter and you have your own website, newsletter, podcasts, and so on. To be honest, it seems like a lot of work. Why did you choose this way to promote yourself?

It's an incredible amount of work. It's tiring and disgusting. I am my own pimp, to be honest -- if I'm not promoting myself, who is? I don't have an agent or a management company looking after me. All of my online work (videos/podcasts/blogs) are extension of my brand -- almost like a funny business card if you will.

The podcast has really changed my comedy. It's also changed my fanbase. I don't have the most followers on Twitter or Facebook but I have the most loyal fans and followers I could ever ask for. I've found people that care -- I have to nurture that relationship, be grateful, remain humble and continue giving back to those that support me.

You were the first native comedian to get a comedy special on CBC Television. How did that happen? Did you just blockade a bunch of roads until the CBC gave in?

It was a huge honour and I actually didn't realize that until my CBC producers told me this. They believed in me. They saw what I was talking about. They saw what I was trying to say. They compared me to Chris Rock and George Carlin. They helped me see my place in the landscape.

It hit me. Something big was happening. Something really, really big. And again -- I don't feel like it's been celebrated at all by the mainstream and barely by Indian Country. Those that have celebrated the accomplishment have been my fans and followers. They get it. Also -- I want to be on record for thanking CBC TV/Radio and CBC Aboriginal and CBC Manitoba for their continued support. CBC produces amazing Indigenous content and are really pushing the conversation forward in this country.

Your UnReserved Tour launches on September 12 in Victoria and you're going to be on the road for six weeks, hitting 26 different cities. How are you doing this and how are you coping with the pressure?

I started planning it as a "Thank You," to everyone that supported me leading up to the comedy special and the Just for Laughs spot. I was going to book 8 or 10 shows and do new material as a way to say thanks. It was going to be more of a fuck-around thing.

I announced I was doing the tour and the internet exploded on my lap. I was getting show requests from everywhere. I was floored. I couldn't believe the reaction. But going back to how I feel about my fans and followers -- they're the best and they wanted to celebrate with me. So we are -- I started asking the internet where I should go, and I've made it happen. Barely. But I've made it happen.

I'm a little too old to be driving across the country, but I am. I want to do comedy for the people that want to see me. I'm working out deals with each venue in every city based on what they're willing to do. Some rentals are very expensive and some venues are doing door deals. I have thousands of dollars in damage deposits and rental fees on my credit card.

I'm counting on the people that are excited about my comedy and where I'm heading with it to bring their friends to the live show. I'm using social media to help spread the word and I'm begging for help through various media that are willing to run a story or put something on the radio for me. I can't afford a publicist -- so I'm putting in long days and long nights. It's the most intense thing I've ever worked on. It's so damn big.

If you won the lottery and were mad rich, and you got to set up any project your little heart desired, what would it be?

I would produce my podcast into a live touring show, shoot it for television and record it for radio (Stuart McLean style mixed with Jian Ghomeshi Q type show) and feature guests, musicians, artists, community leaders, youth, and organizers that are working on their own vision of decolonization. That movement will only happen on the ground -- that's where I want my work to remain.

The full interview can be found on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.]]>Can You Tell this First Nations Act From The '60s Version?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18229442012-08-23T17:34:21-04:002012-10-23T05:12:11-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/1969 White Paper officially titled, "Statement of the Government on Indian Policy." It was put out by then-Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien.

Okay, so why the grim faces when anyone mentions the White Paper?

Well look. There are a lot of places you can go to read a quick synopsis of what the White Paper was suggesting. I don't intend to rewrite all that, though I will excerpt its main points from the UBC page (good links in there too!):

• Convert reserve land to private property that can be sold by the band or its members, etc.

It causes grim looks, because it was grim business. Couched in terms of "equality" and "dignity," it proposed to pave over the colonial history of Canada and pretend none of it happened, or mattered. It would be the final assimilationist move of a government intent on doing away once and for all what Duncan Campbell Scott called the "Indian Problem."

In response, Harold Cardinal and the Indian Chiefs of Alberta published what was dubbed the Red Paper (ha, get it?) in opposition, also known as "Citizens Plus." Again, I don't want to go into exhaustive details as to what it had to say, when there are excellent summaries and even classroom worksheets to explore these two Papers. The White Paper was scrapped.

The reason I don't want to get into it further than this, is that it's ancient history, right? That was 1969, and this is now. Let bygones be bygones.

Wait a minute, that doesn't sound like you at all...

You're right, and I'm sorry. Sometimes I let my sarcasm get the better of me.

Okay, I'll be up front about this. The reason I'm talking about the White Paper right now, is because of the proposed First Nations Property Ownership Act (FNPOA) analysed recently by Pam Palmater. I think that people need to take another look at the 1969 White Paper and ask themselves if anything really has changed.

Take a look at this stirring speech used to introduce the FNPOA:

To be a First Nations person is to be a human, with all a human's needs and abilities. To be a First Nations person is also to be different. It is to speak different languages...rely on a set of values developed in a different world...

...But to be a First Nations person today is to be someone different in another way. It is to be someone apart -- apart in law, apart in the provision of government services...

To be a First Nations person is to lack power -- the power to act as owner of your lands, the power to spend your own money and, too often, the power to change your own condition.

Not always, but too often, to be a First Nations person is to be without -- without a job, a good house, or running water; without knowledge, training or technical skill and, above all, without those feelings of dignity and self-confidence that a man must have if he is to walk with his head held high...

Now wait a damn minute, I actually clicked on the link to the 1969 White Paper, and that quote is from the introduction to it!

Oops, caught me. You're right, that's the opening statement from the White Paper, with some changes from "Indian" to more politically accepted terms like "First Nations" and "Aboriginal." I admit it.

Now that you've read it though, does it sound terribly different from present-day rhetoric? What you should really do is compare the "Indian Lands" portion of the White Paper with what the FNPO Initiative has to say. The two proposals are essentially the same.

It's true that just because the wording is very similar in 2012 as it was in 1969, this does not mean that the FNPOA is about full on assimilation the way that the White Paper was. On the other hand, what lends credibility to the idea assimilation is the goal, is the fact that it is being championed and promoted by people who support exactly that.

• aboriginal title as currently defined is impossible to use in a modern economy;

• aboriginal people can only find prosperity by integrating into the economy "which means, among other things, a willingness to move."

Why am I harping on Flanagan? Well this fine fellow co-authored another book called, "Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights" with a forward by Manny Jules (Chief Commissioner of the FNPO Initiative). Both men are great supporters of the FNPOA. Just like the White Paper and the FNPOA, this book basically asserts that the only rights indigenous people should have are private property rights.

So pardon me if I'm skeptical in the extreme of a plan that was virulently opposed by First Nations when it was first proposed in 1969, a plan couched in western liberal notions of human dignity and freedom of choice just like it is today, 43 years later. Just because they found a native face to slap on top of the FNPOA makes no difference when the attitudes are exactly the same.

So let's call this property rights-specific proposal what it really is: The White Paper Lite.

A longer version of this article can be found on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.]]>Why "Free Houses for Indians" Is a Mythtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17526522012-08-07T14:31:05-04:002012-10-07T05:12:03-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/
I think it's useful to acknowledge that there are different understandings of whether native housing is a right.

If you take a strict legal positivist approach which assumes the only valid perspective is the one that is affirmed by current Canadian law, that's fine. But please recognize that legal positivism does not lead to objective truth outside of '"this is what the law says right now."

I bring this up because part of learning about issues like housing, or education, or treaties is in understanding that aboriginal peoples do not necessarily agree with the Canadian state about how things were, are, or should be. This does not make us wrong and it does not make the Canadian state right. I am not going to argue one way or the other in this article, because that would be a very long post. I am just going to summarise the positions.

Housing as an Aboriginal or treaty right

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples addressed the different perspectives on housing as a right in its final report:

...The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations stated that "[S]helter in the form of housing, renovations, and related infrastructure is a treaty right, and forms part of the federal trust and fiduciary responsibility. [This position derives] from the special Indian-Crown relationship dating back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, enhanced by section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

What "housing as an aboriginal or treaty right" means to different indigenous peoples and organisations varies greatly. To some it means 100 per cent paid for, provided at no-cost funding, while for others it means guaranteed subsidies to help with construction and operation costs, with Bands collecting rent or offering rent-to-own regimes as they wish.

Housing as social policy

From the same report:

To date, the federal government has not recognized a universal entitlement to government-financed housing as either a treaty right or an Aboriginal right. It has taken the position that assistance for housing is provided as a matter of social policy, and its Aboriginal housing policy has been based on this premise. Thus, assistance has been based on 'need'.

The Canadian government then argues that providing housing assistance to those in need (native or not) is a social policy objective for all Canadians. This is the current official approach to native housing in Canada.

There are two main categories of housing on reserve:

market-based housing

non-profit social housing

Market-based housing on reserve

Market-based housing refers to households paying the full cost associated with purchasing or renting their housing. This is not free housing.

As of 2006, home ownership rates on reserve were at 31 per cent, compared to 69 per cent among off reserve Canadians. So while the overall home ownership rate is significantly lower on reserve than off, many Canadians are not aware that there is any home ownership on reserve at all.

There are barriers to market-based housing on reserve which you should understand. Land on reserve is held in common, and not split into individual properties owned by individual people. You can be given permission to possess a piece of land and use it, but this does not mean you own it.

Most people require some sort of loan to purchase a home, and in order to secure that financing you must have collateral (something that can be seized and sold off in order to pay your debt). There are severe Indian Act limitations to seizing property on-reserve, making it extremely difficult to secure financing for anything, whether you intend to buy or build a house, start a business, do renovations or what have you. This is not an endorsement of attempts to unilaterally impose private property regimes on reserve, I'm just explaining things.

There are various programs in place, with new ones being developed on a community by community basis, to address the issue of financing. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) administers Ministerial Loan Guarantees which are the most common and provide security for lenders. However, the First Nation is ultimately on the hook if there is a default and not all communities can cover that cost -- so these loan guarantees are not always available.

So far no one approach has been successful enough to work in every situation, and home ownership on reserve varies from "a lot" to "almost none" depending on the community.

Income is also another obvious barrier to accessing market-based housing on reserve, which brings us to the second category.

Non-profit social housing

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Agency (CMHC) delivers housing programs and services across the country to all Canadians under the National Housing Act:

s.3 "The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy."

Section 95 of this Act deals with social housing, and programs under this section include subsidies for non-profit rental housing on reserve (and elsewhere throughout Canada). If I haven't pounded this fact in enough, let me do it once more: this is not a program that only First Nations people benefit from. There are tens of thousands of Canadians living in co-op housing built with the help of subsidies under s.95.

The members do not own equity in their housing. If they move, their home is returned to the co‑op [the Band], to be offered to another individual or family who needs an affordable home.

Some co‑op households pay a reduced monthly rent (housing charge) geared to their income. Government funds cover the difference between this payment and the co‑op's full charge. Other households pay the full monthly charge based on cost.

Non-profit social housing is often called Band Housing on-reserve, and 57 per cent of on-reserve people lived in these units as of 2006.

AANDC [alone or via the CMHC] does not cover the full cost of housing. In addition to government funding, First Nations and their residents are expected to secure funding from other sources for their housing needs, including shelter charges and private sector loans.

All people in Canada who are eligible for social assistance can be issued shelter allowances. This is meant to help low income individuals meet their shelter expenses (rent, utilities) and is based on provincial tables.

If you want to call what I've described "free housing," then you need to recognize that this situation is not confined to First Nations. If the only complaints on s.95 housing and/or shelter allowances are aimed at First Nations, then those arguments are inherently racist.

However I think the real issue is that most people honestly don't understand housing on-reserve, and because the issue is complicated, people rely on word of mouth. I'm hoping this article helps clear up some of the confusion.

A longer version of this article was published on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.]]>The Truth Is, Attawapiskat Was Never Financially Mismanagedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17343322012-08-02T15:07:26-04:002012-10-02T05:12:06-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/judicial review of the appointment of a Third Party Manager in Attawapiskat.

For those not familiar with the different kinds of cases that come before the various courts in Canada, a judicial review is precisely that -- a court is asked to review the legality of an action or decision made by legislative and executive branches. In essence, anyone should be able to ask, "Was the government right to do this?" and receive an answer from the courts. In this case, the court's answer was, "No."

How the issue was framed in public and what the court had to say

When Charlie Angus first blogged about Attawapiskat, the initial public reaction was horror that such conditions could exist in Canada.

That reaction quickly became swallowed up by a flood of accusations about Band mismanagement and culpability. Whether you wanted to or not, discussing Attawapiskat in public meant addressing those accusations.

Spoiler alert: this Federal Court decision does not magically clear away all the confusion. However, it draws our attention to the way in which misunderstandings led to and exacerbated the crisis in Attawapiskat; misunderstandings not just in the public discourse but also in the minds of those making decisions as to how to respond to the Attawapiskat's needs.

At paragraph 77 of the decision, the Court says:

"The reasonableness of the choice of remedies [i.e. appointing a Third Party Manager] is conditioned by a reasonable and accurate appreciation of the facts and a consideration of the the reasonable alternatives available."

p. 78 "...the [Assistant Deputy Minister] misunderstood the nature of the problem...what was really an operational problem. While the [Attawapiskat First Nation] were having trouble addressing the housing crisis, what they lacked was not the ability to manage their finances...but the material means to do so."

The judgment speaks to the issue of financial management a number of times:

p.24,"Despite the [Prime Minister's] comments about management, the Respondent has not produced evidence of incorrect spending or mismanagement. In fact, the reference by the Prime Minister as to the $90 million could not have related exclusively to the funds made available for housing repair or reconstruction."

p.21, "At no point prior to the appointment of the [Third Party Manager] did department officials indicate there was any problem with Band management. The Band was already under a co-management regime and no issue of Band management or financial administration was raised."

Over and over again, the Federal Court states that financial mismanagement was not the issue, and never had been. The fact that the public dialogue about Attawapiskat was almost wholly concerned with allegations of such mismanagement, demonstrates just how intensely events can become hijacked by misunderstandings.

These misunderstandings did not exist only in the minds of the "average Canadian," but also in the mind of Prime Minister Harper when he made his statement about the $90 million, and in the minds of the local bureaucrats who were desperately trying to respond to the crisis. That much is extremely clear.

It is unlikely that this finding will receive as much national attention as the initial allegations of financial malfeasance, and so unfortunately, this kind of misunderstanding becomes reinforced in the public consciousness as an obvious truth. While this might feel like a "one step forward, two steps back" situation, for me, it merely highlights how important it is to keep chipping away at the lack of understanding between native and non-native in this country. Quite literally, lives depend on us doing so.

We should not underestimate the power of public opinion, nor of public discussions

p.2,"This judicial review confirms, if such confirmation were needed, that decisions made in the glare of publicity and amidst politically charged debate do not always lead to a reasonable resolution of the relevant issue."

p.26,"It would be inaccurate to suggest that officials were insensitive or uncaring about the situation at Attawapiskat...[t]he problem seems to have been a lack of understanding of the [Attawapiskat First Nation's] needs and an intention on the part of officials to be seen to be doing something."

The glare of publicity here is not the cause of the misunderstandings so explored by the Federal Court, just as Prime Minister Harper did not create the nation-wide clamour over supposed corruption in Attawapiskat. Both merely tapped into what already existed.

However this time, native peoples were able to also engage in that public dialogue on a less uneven footing. The Attawapiskat First Nation's webpage was a veritable treasure trove of information even before its financial records were suddenly the most Googled item for a few days. More importantly, the bulk of the conversation was happening between people, not between politicians.

I do think the Federal Court is suggesting that had the crisis not become so public and politically charged, the outcome may have been more satisfactory -- but I think that might be unduly optimistic. The crisis in Attawapiskat provided a wake-up call that actually reached the ears of the nation. Had it not become so public, I doubt we would have seen such a drastic shift in public opinion in favour of not accepting as self-evident that Attawapiskat was to blame for the housing situation.

I very much believe that out here, in the public, is where the most important gains can be made. We can't wait for more Royal Commissions or for widespread curricular reform, and we certainly can't wait for the Canadian government to lead the way. Instead, we should be bringing them along with us. Word by contested word until these misunderstandings are no longer threatening lives.

So let's do this. And maybe finally we can get past the wishing for, and into the planning and building stages.

A longer version of this article was published on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.]]>"Bad Parenting" Is No Excuse For Cultural Genocidetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14437622012-04-25T11:48:20-04:002012-06-25T05:12:02-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/'60s Scoop" and thought it had something to do with ice-cream in ye olden days, I'm here to enlighten you. I prefer the term "Stolen Generations," because the scooping I'm about to discuss didn't end in the '60s, and arguably still goes on today.

I am referring to the wholesale removal of aboriginal children from their families.

In the mid '60s, the federal and provincial governments collaborated to provide child welfare coverage in First Nations communities. Before this, no real system was in place for First Nations people.

Child welfare workers removed Aboriginal children from their families and communities because they felt the best homes for the children were not Aboriginal homes. The ideal home would instill the values and lifestyles with which the child welfare workers themselves were familiar: white, middle-class homes in white, middle-class neighbourhoods. Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal parents and families were deemed to be "unfit."

Research has shown that in British Columbia alone, the percentage of native children in the care of the child welfare system went from almost none to one-third in only 10 years as a result of this expansion. This was a pattern that repeated itself all across Canada.

There is evidence that at least 11,132 status Indian children were removed from their homes between 1960 and 1990. However, it is clear the numbers are in fact much higher than this, as birth records were often closed and status not marked down on foster records. Some estimate the number, which included non-status and Métis children, is more like 20,000.

The '60s scoop picked up where residential schools left off, removing children from their homes, and producing cultural amputees.

Child welfare reforms not working

In the late '70s, it was recognized that the approach up to that point was inadequate. There were efforts made to turn more power over to First Nations themselves and to keep children in their communities rather than being adopted out across Canada, into the U.S. and even overseas.

In 1982, Manitoba Judge Edwin C. Kimelman was appointed to head an inquiry into the child welfare system and how it was impacting native peoples. He had this to say:

It would be reassuring if blame could be laid to any single part of the system. The appalling reality is that everyone involved believed they were doing their best and stood firm in their belief that the system was working well. Some administrators took the ostrich approach to child welfare problems -- they just did not exist. The miracle is that there were not more children lost in this system run by so many well-intentioned people. The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and the child welfare system was the paving contractor.

Nor was this his strongest condemnation of the process, and he made it clear that the system was a form of cultural genocide (page 44).

Unfortunately, by 2002 over 22,500 native children were in foster care across Canada, more than the total taken during the '60s scoop and certainly more than had been taken to residential schools. Aboriginal children are six to eight times more likely to be placed in foster care than non-native children. To ignore the repeated attempts to annihilate aboriginal cultures and instead place the blame solely on "dysfunctional native families" is to take an utterly ahistorical and abusive view.

...[this] over representation...is not rooted in their indigenous race, culture and ethnicity. Rather, any family with children who has experienced the same colonial history and the resultant poverty, social and community disorganization...may find themselves in a similar situation.

Systemic discrimination and underfunding

On April 18th, a historic ruling came down from the Federal Court regarding the underfunding of child welfare services on reserves. This case is a judicial review of a decision made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which dismissed the claims on a technicality.

The Federal Court has sent the case back to the CHRT for a full hearing:

Repeated studies have shown funding for child welfare on reserves is far below that available to children off-reserve and results in far lower levels of service. In particular, the lack of funds available for programs that can help families before they are broken up results in far higher rates of children being taken into foster care on reserves than off reserves.

No situation involving children in need of protective services is a happy one. The stories regardless of the background of the child will chill your blood, and rightfully so. But when only 21 per cent of children in a province like Manitoba are native, yet account for 84 per cent of children in permanent care, something is deeply, and terribly wrong. Something that cannot be chalked up to just bad parenting.

The main reason aboriginal children enter the child protection system is due to "neglect." Neglect in cases involving aboriginal children is driven primarily by three structural risk factors: poverty, inadequate housing and substance misuse.

Inadequate housing is a serious, systemic problem in many First Nations communities. Overcrowding, lack of indoor plumbing or potable water, mould-infested homes and crumbling infrastructure all play a part in what constitutes "inadequate housing." It is also a factor that is rarely something the families in question can directly control. Attawapiskat recently provided stark evidence of this.

Aboriginal children and their families are being punished for being faced with unacceptable living conditions that no one living in Canada should have to contend with.

The legacy of over 100 years of concerted cultural abuse, particularly directed at taking children away from their families, has taken its toll on our communities. There is no denying it. In my opinion, the question now needs to be: Will Canada acknowledge this and do what it takes to redress these wrongs?

A more detailed version of this article was posted on the author's blog, âpihtawikosisân.]]>Canada, Stop Seeing Yourself as Always the Good Guytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14341272012-04-20T10:04:33-04:002012-06-20T05:12:02-04:00Chelsea Vowelhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-vowel/
This lacuna in our collective knowledge is not limited to events which affected indigenous peoples. You might reach adulthood without ever once being aware that in 1918, twelve "enemy languages" were banned in Canada, including Ukrainian and German, and that there were periods of sharp repression even after this ban was lifted. You might not know that 4,000 Canadian citizens of Ukrainian decent were interned along with other "enemy aliens" from 1914 -1920 while 80,000 others were forced to "check in" with police from time to time.

You might have no idea that in 2005, a bill was passed to acknowledge these historical wrongs, only a few years before the last survivors of interment died. You might not know that a $10 million fund was set up to commemorate these events and to raise awareness. You might not know any of this unless it is a part of your family's history (and perhaps not even then), because it was never talked about officially until so very recently.

I bring this all up, because I am often faced with incredulity when I talk about the things that indigenous peoples in Canada have experienced. People are shocked that they were not aware of these things. Perhaps they think that it is strange such things have been kept quiet.

I submit that this is not strange at all. I too was raised within a system that lauded Canada's achievements at home and especially internationally. We celebrate the good stories and occasionally mention some of the bad things in a "those were different times" sense. The overriding narrative is that Canada has always tried its best. It is a good country that has sometimes done bad things.

I am not here to say the opposite is true. But our collective national history is not yet complete. I have lived through the recognition of Japanese internment, an apology for the Chinese head tax. I learned in University and at Holocaust museums that Jewish refugees were turned away from Canada in the 1930s, and how many of those people died in the Holocaust as a result. These things are slowly coming to the surface. Bubbling up and becoming part of our national narrative in an official way.

Our history is littered with abuses. If we want to live up to our reputation as a nation that respects human rights, we have to face the horrors of our past, head on. We have to acknowledge what was done, and how it was justified. We are only beginning this journey of self-discovery.

This is not just the history of individual Sikh and Muslim and Hindu families, of individual Chinese families, of only Jews and Japanese and Ukrainians and Germans and Blacks. This is Canada's history, and we do not fully acknowledge it. In its glories and triumphs, in its failures and repressions. It is no weakness to admit these things and learn about them. It is considered a truism we must learn from our mistakes, yet we still seem to shy away from talking about them and teaching them.

I strongly believe that all of Canada's closets need cleaning. I speak from my perspective as a Métis woman struggling to recover her own history, a history that was denied even while it was whispered about in kitchens, around fires. I freely acknowledge that our story is not the only story, but I cannot bear the burden of speaking for all people. I cannot even speak for all Métis.

When I reach out, and explain our history to those who do not yet know it, I am rediscovering it too. When I reach out this way, I am not telling you that your history is irrelevant. I cannot spend time prefacing my articles with proof that I understand a great deal of the oppression that has been faced by non-natives in Canada before I tackle the oppression native peoples have, and continue to face. I can only keep learning the histories. All of them.

This is all I am asking of Canadians. I ask that you learn all the histories. That you learn our history too. After all, these are your histories too, regardless of your background. If somehow, this seems like an unreasonable request, or you feel that I am not asking "politely enough," then that is your choice. Kiyam.

And sometimes we need to agree to disagree, because communication can become hopelessly convoluted and eventually impossible at times. That's okay, too. After all, I am asking for there to be even more variety in experiences discussed at the national level, not less.

I'll be over here, doing my best to sweep out this closet. Perhaps when we clean out all the skeletons, we can pack those closets with sweeter smelling things.]]>